I think your second question is much more interesting and answerable than your first. I'd recommend editing the question so it's just the second part, and adding whatever background and motivation you can.
–
Isaac MosesMay 8 '13 at 20:28

I second @IsaacMoses. The first would depend on the recipe. The question "does Shishim apply" is much different than "is it Kosher"?
–
Seth JMay 8 '13 at 20:33

1

@Daniel Ask: "Does Judaism allow placebos where the person thinks it does something, and is thereby cured, even though the item does nothing. Is this gnevas da'as, or because it can help them it's permitted to mislead them this way."
–
ArielMay 8 '13 at 21:05

@Daniel Homeopathy claims it works that way. It doesn't. It's a placebo. It's very effective though - don't get me wrong, but it works because the person believes it works. But the question "are you allowed to make someone worse in order to [try to] heal them" is yet another good question - but the amounts used in homeopathy will never actually do that.
–
ArielMay 8 '13 at 21:18

2 Answers
2

1) Hamaor (journal) Sh'vat 1983. Someone asked R' Moshe Feinstein concerning the kashrut of homeopathic 'remedies' on Passover. (Would the prohibition against purposely nullifying a substance apply?) The response came from Rabbi Moshe Tendler who wrote that his father-in-law didn't want to deal with the question because homeopathy is nonsense:

"Homeopathy is not considered a tested and confirmed remedy that people can use without going against the will of God.
A theory of healing that goes against rationalism brings one to nonsense beliefs and endangers the patient to foreign influences, occult beliefs and eventually to deny the order of nature that God has arranged.
Since he doesn't want to deal with such ideas, Rav Feinstein is compelled to refuse to answer your question."
(My rough translation. Please refer to the original Hebrew for the sake of accuracy.)

I emphasized the terms tested and confirmed (בדוקה ומנוסה) because they refer to the prohibition against superstitions- "darchei haemori". The source in Shulchan Aruch is OC:301. Basically, any cure that has no basis in science and has been proven ineffective (or perhaps not proven effective) is forbidden as a superstition. (There are nuances that need further study.) Indeed, homeopathy has been proven ineffective (see wikipedia for references to the meta-studies) and has no rational basis in science.
(I can speculate as to the meaning of the rest of the letter. Many people who believe and promote homeopathy tend to have other strange beliefs. There is a definite connection between homeopathy and the occult/superstitions. Major influential homeopaths such J. T. Kent, Edward Bach and George Vithoulkas were/are occultists. More than half of Wikipedia's list of homeopaths have some connection to the occult/spiritualism/new age. In some cases, outright idolatry is involved.)

The article in the HaMaor journal continues with two rather strange responses to Rabbi Tendler/Feinstein's "non-responsum". They include halachic non-sequitors, a bizarre claim that homeopathy is respected by doctors/scientists, an accusation that Rabbi Tendler fabricated his father-in-law's response, and even an ad hominem attack against Rabbi Tendler for attending university.

I found three other reponsa that deal with Rabbi Feinstein's negation of homeopathy:

1) Rabbi Chaim Dovid HaLevi in T'chumin, Volume 3. He deals with the Passover issue and the question of non-scientific (segulot) remedies in general. (I would humbly suggest anyone reading the responsum to study all the sources he cites very carefully. Especially problematic is that he disregards the major point that Rabbi Tendler makes- that homeopathy is not בדוקה ומנוסה ; instead he only deals with the issue that homeopathy has no scientific explanation.)

The low concentration of homeopathic remedies, which often lack even a
single molecule of the diluted substance,[13] has been the basis of
questions about the effects of the remedies since the 19th century.

If there is not a single molecule of a non-kosher ingerdient, what possible problem can there be?

A davar ha-maamid can not be batel. It's irrelevant that the substance doesn't actually make a difference (because homeopathy isn't a regular medicine, it's a mental tool) - the person who makes it/eats it thinks it does, so in their eyes it's a davar ha-maamid.
–
ArielMay 8 '13 at 21:02

But if there is not a single molecule present - then there is nothing there of it. This is not a question of bittul - it's a question of existence (so to speak).
–
Avrohom YitzchokMay 8 '13 at 21:20

Are you sure bitul has to do with empirical measurement? CO2 from beer making is prohibited on Pesach - but there is no beer in there, only pure CO2. Reb Moshe Feinstein permitted Shellac because it is initially batel - yet it's afterward reconstituted and every bit of it is still there. (Never mind that many argue on him - the existence of this concept is what matters here.)
–
ArielMay 8 '13 at 21:23

@Ariel Are his eyes relevant? We know it isn't a maamid because it doesn't do anything.
–
Double AA♦May 8 '13 at 22:39